ML20212P999
| ML20212P999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford, 05000386  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212P990 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-86-15, NUDOCS 8609030360 | |
| Download: ML20212P999 (2) | |
Text
.
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Louisiana Power & Light Company Docket:
50-382 Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 License:
NPF-38 During an NRC inspection conducted on July 1-31, 1986, two violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The violations involved failure to follow procedures for calibration of measuring and test equipment and failure to make prompt notification.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.1 requires, in part, that written procedures be established and implemented covering activities reccmmended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2. Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, requires written procedures be established for control of measuring and test equipment (M&TE).
Administrative Procedure MD-1-015, Revision 1, was established to control M&TE.
Paragraph 5.11 of MD-1-015 requires, in part, that all M&TE be delivered to the metrology lab on or before its expiration date for calibration.
Contrary to the above, Procedure MD-1-015 was not followed in that the following M&TE was found to be in the plant and available for use but was overdue for calibration:
1.
MIPT 091.016, with a calibration due date of June 19, 1986, was still in the plant on July 2, 1986.
2.
MEET 025.037, with a calibration due date of June 19, 1986, was still in the plant on July 3, 1986.
3.
MIES 020.007, with a calibration due date of June 5, 1986, was still in the plant on July 3, 1986.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
. Supplement I) (50-382/8615-01)
(
B.
10 CFR Parts 50.72 and 50.73 require that, for specified occurrences, each nuclear power reactor licensee notify the NRC either via the Emergency Notification System or in writing with a Licensee Event Report (LER), as appropriate.
10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(ii) requires, in part', that each nuclear reactor licensee notify the NRC Operations Center via the Emergency Notification System within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of any event or condition that results in a manual or autoiratic actuation of any engineered safety feature (ESF) which was not part of a preplanned sequence during testing or maintenance.
10 CFR Part 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) requires the licensee to report'in an LER-any operation or condition prohibited by the plant's TS.
8609030360 860326 PDR ADOCK 05000382 G
2 Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to make the required 4-hour notification to the NRC Operations Center and the licensee also' failed to issue an LER within 30 days after discovery of. the following' reportable _
events:
1.
On July 10, 1986, two of the safetylinjection tanks'(SITS) were inadvertently injected into the reactor coolant system durin'g maintenance and notification to the NRC Operations Center _was not made within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> as required by 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(ii).
2.
On June 17, 1986, the licensee identified that radioactive effluent had been discharged via a pathway with a radioactive effluent monitor which had been inoperable for greater than 14 days.
Notwithstanding the fact that this operation was specifically prohibited by ACTION 28 of TS 3.3.3.10, the licensee failed to submit an LER within 30 days of discovery of the event per 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B).
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
(Supplement I) (50-382/8615-02)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Louisiana Power & Light Company is hereby required to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of the htter transmitting this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violations if admitted, (2) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved.
(3) the corrective steps which will be caken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Dated at Ar1 ngton, Texas this
,2 l, day of M 1986
/